Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

The best explanation I've heard thus far for economic crisis..(sm)

Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-12-18
In Reply to:

The Real Deal

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:


  • The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.


  • Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.


  • Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.


  • Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.


  • The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.


  • Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.


  • Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.


  • Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.


  • The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.


  • An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.


  • Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

–by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

And your solution to the economic crisis is???? (nm)
x
McCains Top 10 economic crisis strategies.

10.   Blissful ignorance.  "The economy is not my strong suit."


 9.    Ridicule.  In an interview with the Washington Post on 07/9/2008, McCain advisor and national campaign general co-chair Senator Phil Gramm was defining McCain's plans to reform the U.S. economy.  Gramm explained the nation was not in a recession, stating, "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."  This would be the same Phil Gramm of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate.  The legislation allowed Swiss Bank UBS to purchase several American institutions. Gramm later became a lobbyist for UBS, collecting over 750,000 USD in fees. UBS alone issues over 18 Billion USD in subprime mortgages.  


 8.    Denial.  Black Monday, 09/15/2008.  John McCain:  "The fundamentals of our economy are still sound."  A worldwide stock market crash occurred as Lehman Brothers filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and major investment bank Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America. Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 500 points, which is the biggest point drop (up to that point) since September 2001.  FTSE 100 dropped 212 points, and it was the biggest one-day percentage drop since January 21, 2008. Hong Kong, Japan and Korea stock market suspended that day due to public holiday, and they fell over 5% on the following day.   Two weeks later, we had a blacker Monday (09/29/2008) with a 777.68 point drop on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


 7.    Political grandstanding.  Announcement of suspending his campaign to return to DC to "lead" Congress during economic bail-out negotiations.  This effort led to a defeat of the measure when the votes were cast.  Tried unsuccessfully to use the bailout as an excuse to postpone the presidential debate.  


 6.    Flip-Flop.  Claims to support regulation.  Record says otherwise. 


 5.    Incoherence.  Threatens to fire the chairman of the SEC if he were in office, even though the president does not have the authority to do so.   


 4.    Theft of intellectual property.  Claiming previously existing mortgage buy-out proposal as his own. 


 3.    Avoid / change the subject.  Greg Strimple, a McCain top advisor:  If we keep talking about the economy, we will lose." 


 2.    Engage the politics of division, hate, fear mongering and cultural warfare with high-gear Obama smear campaign:  Ayers, ACORN, Farrakhan, Rev Jeremiah Wright, Barack Hussein Obama, etc.      


 1.    McCain’s send message to voters is to stop whining about the economy and start focusing on attacking Obama.


Obama's economic crisis strategy...
Vote for the bailout....and nothing else.  Zip, zilch, nada.   Oh, except echo Harry Reid, and I quote:  "Nobody knows what to do about this."  Well, no **** Sherlock.  And STILL doesn't know.  Not a clue.  All he can say is middle class tax cuts and watch the thrills run up peoples' legs.  Would be funny if it weren't so.....
Perhaps you could enlighten us on the economic crisis suffered by
There is nothing in your chart or context that convincingly explains away the $559 billion dollar surplus Clinton left behind when his term came to an end.

Having said that, most Americans will agree that, when compared to the past 8 years, the middle class enjoyed a prosperous decade in the 90s. I was able to pay off my condo, so it has been foreclosure-proof under W.
Well I've heard
that Castro wrote a column calling Obama "the most progressive presidential candidate" etc and also I've seen videos and pictures of Obama's campaign office with Che Chavez flags? I mean I know that some of it is republicans twisting words and what not, but I don't think it can ALL be refuted as that.

I've also seen some videos of other leaders endorsing Obama. I'll try to find them. Like I said I know some of them are probably fake, but I doubt all of them are. Sorry I can't name names right off the top of my head, I'll try to take some time to do some research and find exactly which ones have been talked about. I'm not a political whiz so I have to do a lot of research! :-D
What I've heard is
that McCain's first pick was Lieberman, but he was forced by the GOP into the pick of Sarah Palin.  I figure right about now he's sitting back and watching them self destruct.  Of course, the facts about all of this are not out yet.
Now I've heard it all!!!!! s/m
Does anyone besides me remember the 1960 elections???  Then it was anti-Catholic rhetoric and no one made any bones about it.  It was said that JFK was the antichrist, the pope would take over the world, he would be the ruination of this country....come to think of it pretty much like what we have going now except that it ended after the election.  I voted for Kennedy and I doubt I'm on my way to  hades because of it.  I also voted for Obama. 
I've heard that also........... sm
I don't understand why Israel is all of a sudden Bush's fault.

The CV joints on my car need replacing. It's a Nissan, but I think I will just blame Bush for it anyway. Would make about as much sense.
I've heard other people say that...

I would only imagine that she's lapping up all the attention as well.  I have no faith she can run this country and I never thought he would have picked a woman.  Obama/Biden...  Looking better and better.


Oh and the pic of his shoes with holes just shows he's a hard worker and does not squander money in my opinion.  Also, some workers at my hubs place of employment purposefully wear holey shoes to show they need a raise.  If management says something about the holes in the shoes, they answer with when they get a raise; gotta eat first!  Maybe Obama really is for the working class!


Not interested, really... we've heard it all before
.
I've heard of that happening here too
in town.  Our house was broken into a few weeks ago.  Our food wasn't taken but a fairly good amount of cash which my husband had left on the dresser WAS taken. 
I've heard that excuse before.
Who cares how we got here. What we need now are solutions. Iraq ring a bell? It certainly DOES matter how we got here and who was in charge when it happened.
I've never heard JM say "when" - sm
I've heard him say "if". However Obama continues to say in almost as many times as McCain says "My friends"

I'd like links from the people who say he always says "when"
They must've heard it on blogcaca
blogcaca has an amazing number of followers. See "Oh. My. GOD." below.

d
I've always heard people say...

..."If you don't like living in America, then leave."  I guess that option would no longer be open.  This all seems to be going on right in front of us.  Maybe that's one of the reasons we have U.S. troops stationed in the United States now, to "control" those of us who never agreed, voted or signed on to this "deal."


There might be no escape from the one-world government, but I did come upon one very unique way to leave this earth. 


(To the MOON, Alice!)


This is the most ignorant cr@p I've ever heard
Why aren't you talking about the anchor babies born in the U.S.?  How can they be natural born citizens when there parents are illegal?  That is a much bigger problem to our economy than Obama's  birth certificate.  Use your brains...if you have one....Obama is an American citizen, his birth certificate is on the internet and when you're following these idjits that keep this stuff going, your mind isn't on the real problems of this country and that's what these radical groups who keep the ridiculous lawsuits going want you to do.
OMG, I've heard so many stories like this one
from my Canadian friends! I can't understand why anyone who knows how that system works would want to bring it to the US! If this is what we have to look forward to our country is in DEEP trouble!!!
Oh, yeah. We've heard that one
Did they reimburse the expenses for the $300 thousand "photo shoot" that scared the bejezus out of everyone in New York City?

Okay, here's a hint. The answer isn't "yes".
Poll: In current economic, social and economic

The  IDEA of:



  1. Full employment.

  2. Shorter work week.

  3. Guaranteed minimum wage income for all adults.

  4. Universal social benefits to include health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training.

  5. Programs to ensure gender equality.

  6. Democratization of our banking and financial system, including popular election for those in charge of public sterwardship in the banking system.

  7. Employees control over their own pension assets.

  8. Alternative financial institutions controlled by local community members (similar to credit unions). 

Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

The only time I've heard Obama
talk about religion where it concerns POLICY is with the abortion issue.  In the 3rd debate he said he was pro-choice because he felt it was a moral issue, guided by religion, lack of religion, or whatever.  To me this means he is (unlike McCain) inclusive of the beliefs of ALL the people, not just some or those who have the same religious beliefs. 
Isn't that the most absurd thing you've ever heard?

Now there's the best reason I've heard yet to vote

Waa, I'm Muslim, nobody likes meWaa, I have terrorist associations so nobody will vote for meWaa, I wanna take everyone's money and redistribute it evenly (that's like restarting Monopoly because you're losing)


Then, when I win, we can have a big pity party!!!!


THAT is the most insane statement I've ever heard!
How the heck can a baby born in this country to ILLEGAL parents be a legal citizen.  You're fine with that?  Makes me wonder if you are an American citizen.
FANTASTIC!! Best news I've heard all day. (nm)
x
I've heard no rude or bad words from Gourdie
Only from that nawnau
Well, I've heard and read he's a pretty rough character
much less a peace prize candidate. In all seriousness, enlighten me as to what he's done to deserve a peace prize? I can only assume it's because of his socialistic practices that seem to now be a pre-requisite for being a peace prize candidate...
I've heard Chatty Cathy in several places on news.
No original thoughts.
I've heard that natural gas heating costs are expected to TRIPLE this winter!

I have gas heat, and so does my daughter.


Your mother is fortunate to have you and your sisters to help her.  Makes me worry about all the elderly people barely scraping by on Social Security who have no family.  I guess they and the other poor people are just considered to have no value and are disposable.  I guess someday I'll be disposable, as well.


I totally agree with what Putin said.  Of ALL the places in the world to force change upon, the Middle East is probably the worst one!  Change does have to come from within.  Their culture is so different from ours, and I believe we should respect all cultures that are different from ours.  Sometimes I wonder who would win an election in Iraq if Saddam was suddenly back on the ballot. When Bush debated Gore in 2000, Bush claimed to be against nation building (though he said Cheney was in favor of it, which leads me to believe that Cheney really IS running the administration, as has often been alleged).


I always watch closely when Putin and Bush have press conferences.  Putin should be called Pukin because he's always got this look of disgust on his face, as if he's about to run out of patience with Bush and his idiocy. 


I remember when we first began to brag that the Cold War is over.  I always thought that was a stupid thing to say, because it's never over till it's over.  History will be the judge of that.  I often wondered how a country full of people who were accustomed to having their vital needs met by their government as a RIGHT, rather than a privilege, could possibly survive in the dog-eat-dog, sometimes unscrupulous atmosphere of capitalism.  As far as I know, Putin isn't all that enamored with capitalism, and I'm just waiting for Russia to once again become communistic or maybe socialistic.  I guess time will tell. 


explanation

It is the thought that everyone, no matter what situation they were born in, is solely responsible for their own  misfortunes. It is the thought that what is yours is yours and you are never under any obligation to help anyone in need.  It is the philosophy that government's only duty is to fight wars and sometimes pave the roads.  It is the philosophy that if you are 80, handicapped, and have no family or vehicle in which to escape a natural disaster, it is your choice to remind in a natural disaster and the consequences are your problem.


 


No one had given me an explanation still. Because you don't have one. nm
x
explanation
I haven't seen him show any disrespect to the flag, EVER! Can you show an example of actual DISRESPECT?
And there is still no explanation..(sm)

of *the reality of O.*


Explanation...........

They ALL spend like drunken sailors.  Didn't Clinton (at least) leave us with a balanced budget?  I have a granddaughter in Brownsville, Tx, and kids in Houston so I get a weekly report on how bad the illegal situation is.


People can blame the Democrat congress of the past 2 years and don't get me wrong, I think they all need to be sent to the moon,  but Bush and his Republican majority didn't work out so well did they?


I'll take the promise of change over more of the same.  At least we can change the change we don't like if we're of a mind to. But before we do that the "rabid" Republicans AND Democrats need to get over it.


DEFINITION OF RABID REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT:  A person who has such tunnel vision regarding their "party" that they can't see past the end of their nose.


Explanation
Republicans on this board have been calling Democrats sheeple...sheep people I think.
Partial explanation perhaps?

I've been noticing that quite often when there is a conservative belief/claim being put forth repeatedly on this board (right now it's that Republicans always do the right thing and admit to their behavior and resign versus the Democrats who never do the right thing/can't admit their behavior and never resign), when doing research I find that the posters on this board are simply regurgitating what they are reading on the many far-right blogs/newsletters/publications.  It's almost word for word.  THere have been many examples in the past besides this most recent rant.  At this point it seems that the far-rights are guilty of being unable to have original thoughts.  Now let's see if they can do the right thing and admit it.......(laughter here, please).


On a more serious note, I never saw Clinton referred to as a serial rapist until reading this board.  Once again, upon checking this out I see multiple, multiple references on -- you guessed it - multiple far-right-crazy political blogs/newsletters, etc......you get the idea.  The thing that I find worrisome, though, is that we have been requested repeatedly not to bash Bush on this board in any fashion, yet past presidents (especially those that are Democrats) are fair game for any manner of accusations.  If we shouldn't question Bush's decisions (as an example) because of how it will look to other countries who might read this forum, how does it look to call our former president a serial rapist?


Sam explains it very well, see her explanation below....nm

Good explanation! nm
x
This is not an intelligent explanation
First, if the administration was pushing for good things for our country, not taking the country down the path of socialism/communism and had a good plan for the future to get us on the road to recovery, everyone would want him to succeed. But since he is not and we're on the brink of depression/socialism with no hopes for the future and no plans to help Americans, more unemployment ahead, more people losing homes, etc, yes we want "that" to fail (not "him", we want "that" to fail). If it was anyone else in the seat doing the same actions I would wish for the same thing. If Hillary, Mit Romney, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, etc had the same exact failing policies that are being pushed on us now I would have the same opinion.

I've listed to plenty of their lies they are spewing. This is not an "intelligent explanation about the plan for this country". This is another distortion and lies to us and we are tired of it.

Calling people un-American because they are tired of being lied to is really un-Patriotic.
It's quite simple and doesn't need an explanation...sm
Get your hands (control) in areas that product oil, i.e., Iraq.
Thx - your explanation helped me understand it better
I understand that it had to be done, however, I guess I'm wondering is who is going to end up paying for it. Is it going to be us (people who make around $30K or so), or will it be the super wealthy millionaire, billionaire, and then the gluttonous people like Soros - now there's someone whose a slime lizzard). I did find this article written by Motley Fools. They are pretty good for writing things that even I can understand and they wrote an article listing the people responsible. So, I guess my questions is...Are the people who are responsible for letting this happen going to be responsible to get it fixed. After all, if I have a business and I run it into the ground nobody but me is going to pay for it. Anyway...think this is a good article...

http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/the-people-responsible-for-fannie-mae-and-freddie-.aspx

Thats a great explanation (no message)
x
Not that you are owed any explanation for what we chose to post...sm
because anyone who wants to come on the liberal board and post liberally and respectfually can. From your tone, I would think you were not a liberal.

FYI, we have discussed the Gitmo decision, and you or anyone else is welcome to post *important legislation* coming up. I'm sure there will be in response to the Gitmo judgement.

The firing off of misses by North Korea is a few days old and I'm waiting to see how the government reacts. I mean we went into Iraq for so-called stockpiles of WMDs and yet N. Korea is test firing their missles and the White House says there is no threat, so this tells me one or two things. #1. There was equally no threat in Iraq. OR #2. We are more ambivalent to fight in N. Korea than we were in Iraq, especially since our troops are already spread out.

Thanks for your input new blood. Feel free to open a debate of your own if that's what you want to see happen, but if you are a conservative here to stir the pot spare us and yourself the annoyance.
Important: An explanation we can understand.....see inside
Please read this, as this is finally an explanation in terms we can understand, of what this 700 billion plan will entail.

I hope they go into more details once it's all decided.




September 27, 2008

President's Radio Address




THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Many Americans are anxious about their finances and their future. On Wednesday, I spoke to the Nation, and thanked Congress for working with my Administration to address the instability in our financial system. On Thursday, I hosted Senator McCain, Senator Obama, and congressional leaders from both parties at the White House to discuss the urgency of passing a bipartisan rescue package for our economy.

The problems in our economy are extremely complex, but at their core is uncertainty over "mortgage-backed securities." Many of these financial assets relate to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline. In turn, the banks holding these assets have restricted credit, and businesses and consumers have found it more difficult to obtain affordable loans. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I proposed that the Federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently needed money to help banks and other financial institutions avoid collapse and resume lending.

I know many of you listening this morning are frustrated with the situation. You make sacrifices every day to meet your mortgage payments and keep up with your bills. When the government asks you to pay for mistakes on Wall Street, it does not seem fair. And I understand that. And if it were possible to let every irresponsible firm on Wall Street fail without affecting you and your family, I would do it. But that is not possible. The failure of the financial system would mean financial hardship for many of you.

The failure of the financial system would cause banks to stop lending money to one another and to businesses and consumers. That would make it harder for you to take out a loan or borrow money to expand a business. The result would be less economic growth and more American jobs lost. And that would put our economy on the path toward a deep and painful recession.

The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street -- it is aimed at your street. And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets. We must ensure that taxpayers are protected, that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars, and that there is a bipartisan board to oversee these efforts.

Under the proposal my Administration sent to Congress, the government would spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets from banks and other financial institutions. I know many Americans understand the urgency of this action, but are concerned about such a high price tag. Well, let me address this directly:

The final cost of this plan will be far less than $700 billion. And here's why: As fear and uncertainty have gripped the market for mortgage-related assets, their price has dropped sharply. Yet many of these assets still have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay off their mortgages. In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup much, if not all, of the original expenditure.

Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have contributed constructive proposals that have improved this plan. I appreciate the efforts of House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders to bring a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to these discussions. Our Nation's economic well-being is an issue that transcends partisanship. Republicans and Democrats must continue to address it together. And I am confident that we will pass a bill to protect the financial security of every American very soon.

Thank you for listening.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080927.html
A good explanation of the polls and margins...sm
Pollsters Struggle to Handicap Presidential Race

Barack Obama's leading in virtually every national poll, but his margin fluctuates wildly -- suggesting that in some cases, the numbers do in fact lie.


Barack Obama's been leading John McCain in almost every national poll since late September, and it may seem like he's got the election all sewn up.

But the Democratic presidential nominee's margin has fluctuated wildly, anywhere from 1 to 13 points in the past two weeks alone. And a few recent polls are even within the margin of error, suggesting McCain could actually be leading among certain sets of voters.

This doesn't mean the surveys are masking a widespread McCain advantage -- he's still trailing in most major battlegrounds needed to secure the election. But survey disparities are so great this year as to suggest that the numbers, contrary to the old adage, sometimes do lie.

Part of the problem? The sheer amount of polls being conducted across the country.

FOX News political analyst Karl Rove said by his count, there have been 177 national polls conducted as of Oct. 24, compared with 55 at the same time in 2004.

"The proliferation of polls, particularly polls run by universities that may not have the skill and capability that a professional polling outfit has, are really not helpful to the process, in my opinion," Rove said.

But some of the inconsistencies in the polls this year can also be traced to the method used by the pollsters.

The "expanded" Gallup poll, unlike the "traditional" one, includes those citizens who call themselves likely voters but who've never actually voted before.

"This year, I think all pollsters are concerned about how they're defining 'likely' voters, and trying to understand turnout," FOX News polling director Dana Blanton said. "There's been so much attention placed on new registration and enthusiasm among the electorate, and it's just -- it's extremely hard to figure out that, that piece of the puzzle."

Obama held a 10-point lead Monday in Gallup's expanded poll, but only a 5-point lead in their traditional poll.

Karlyn Bowman, who studies public opinion for the American Enterprise Institute, urged voters to examine the wording and sequencing of a poll's questions, to be wary of sudden spikes -- and to shop around.

"If you see a huge change in let's say the McCain-Obama margin overall, you might want to think about whether or not there has been something that's happened that would produce that kind of extraordinary change," she said. "But I think it's important to look at one poll, and then to compare that poll to other polls, and that's the way you can be an educated consumer."

A survey of the polling landscape shows the latest CBS News/New York Times poll to be the outlier, placing Obama up by 13 points.

A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll last week had Obama up by 9 points.

Investor's Business Daily, which came closest to nailing the race between President Bush and John Kerry in 2004 (within four-tenths of a point), has the current presidential race within the margin of error. And The Associated Press recently reported a virtual tie.

With polls still fluctuating but mostly showing Obama in the lead, the Illinois senator says he's taking nothing for granted.

"Don't believe for a second this election is over. Don't think for a minute that power concedes," Obama said Monday in Canton, Ohio. "We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does depend on it in this last week."

McCain, meanwhile, is pledging to stun the pundits on Election Day.

"Let me give you the state of the race today. There's eight days to go. We're a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they've done before," McCain said Monday in Ohio. "Senator Obama's measuring the drapes ... You know I guess I'm old fashioned about these things. I prefer to let the voters weigh in before predicting the outcome."

Both Blanton and Bowman said there appears to be no evidence of a so-called "bandwagon effect" in American elections -- the idea that widespread dissemination of polling data trending a certain way will cause voters to in turn move in that direction. Such an effect might have led to a Hillary Clinton-Rudy Giuliani pairing, once the favorites in their respective races.

Experts say the "bandwagon" effect might be more common in places like Israel or Great Britain, where election cycles are much shorter.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/dont-like-polls-wait-minutes/
Finally, a clear, concise explanation of ""The Plan". check out link

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2


Wow, common sense!!


There IS no constitutional crisis.
Recession teetering on the brink of depression. WAKE UP, will ya?
Maybe it isn't a crisis, just extortion and
I bet it won't be long before some of the anti-union people (poster below) will be begging for union representation.  Since Reagan kept his promise to break the unions it's been a downhill course and I imagine we've just about reached the bottom of the hill.
Actually, you are wrong about his role in this crisis....
concerning Fannie and freddie, he tried to get legislation passed to deal directly with them...and the Democrats blocked it. Fact is, John McCain was on the RIGHT side of this issue, and perhaps if the Democrats had listened to him in 2005 we would not be facing this crisis today. In the interest of full disclosure and truth, this is what he said regarding that legislation:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

He saw it coming, tried to tell the Dems, and they blocked it. Chris Dodd, head of banking and finance comittee, Democrat, largest recipient of donations from them. Guess who was #2?
crisis manufactured by Bush

they knew about this for weeks -- trying to railroad dems before election.


 


The truth about the housing crisis...
I will warn you this is long, but if your interested in the truth this is a good place to start.






Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist,
and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current
state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper - almost every local daily paper
in America :

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's
journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before
the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague
emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late
1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more
accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized
to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to
be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor - which especially
would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these
people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a
house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -
along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.
One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried
repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such
attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political
contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to
make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were
allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to
contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support
increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who
produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a
position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700
billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which
politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage
lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party
or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a
vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank,
both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused
Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these
agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost
up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts
Matter?" ( ]" target=_blank>http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com<http://snipurl.com/457to>]
): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's
Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The
party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic
Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican
deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to
account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took
offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who
is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million
while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one
presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on
housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have
called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper
every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried
this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an
"adviser" to the Obama campaign - because that campaign had sought his
advice - you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain
of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to
the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles,
you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all
Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically
selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including
Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you
would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow
Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration
never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not
stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension - so you pounded
us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you
created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that
there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American
people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they
tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama
because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as
hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim
you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your
paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie
- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and
the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame
everything bad - even bad weather - on Bush, and they are responding as
you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and Editor would be
insisting on telling the truth - even if it hurts the election chances
of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth
even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what
honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He
has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time - and you have
swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin,
reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried
daughter - while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery
for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know
what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will
throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women
threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his
well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who
listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no
principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and
the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven
and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list
of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been
getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with
its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its
lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories
will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which
put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about
helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a
Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the
truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once
to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton
administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and
blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe -
and vote as if - President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis,
then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats - including Barack
Obama - and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants
were Republicans - then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and
it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we
can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro ,
North Carolina , and is used here by permission.